Revision as of 23:02, 15 April 2018

When it comes to knowing guns, I've never see a pro-gun control legislator or activist with a clue about how guns work. Finding one is my white whale.

The purpose of this article isn't to malign everyone who supports gun control: I'm sure there's some sincere and intelligent folks out there. Maybe even a few that know the basics of guns. I hope to meet one. If I find more than one, I'll dedicate an article to them. But this article is about the majority of gun-controllers, and how it's the 99% that give the rest a bad name. And this isn't about "gotcha" type gaffes, this is fundamental failure to understand what they're talking about. If you don't know how to hold a gun, what the parts are, proper terms, usage, history, or function, then they sure don't know how to make legislation to make things better. The results are what you'd expect if a primitive Melanesian tribe member (of the cargo cult fame), was elected to congress and put in charge of Airline Safety. But that's not really fair for Melanesian's, as at least they would be advocates for more cargo, and the congressional anti-gun folks are luddites preying on an even dumber constituency.

Now that's not to say they can't be intelligent and functioning human beings in other aspects of their lives. They might be quite smart and accomplished, as long as you don't touch the emotional hot-button topic of boomsticks (then their brains turn off). These are just a few of the many examples that cause informed gun owners such frustration.

NOTE: some people may think these are just technicalities, but they show proficiency and understanding. Would you trust your life to a doctor who didn't know what a stethoscope was, or what part went in his ear? I certainly won't trust laws that limit my liberty to nitwits that don't know the basics of how a gun operates or basic terminology.

Arthur Acevedo

John Marshall Law School, Chicago Tribune. Arthur Acevedo made a statement that any fact checker would have caught as moronic, if only the Chicago Tribune had any. What did he say that was so dumb? "For safety: the first bullet in every cops gun should be a blank"

A blank can not operate a semi-automatic weapon. It's not that Acevedo made a bone-headed mistake that a few 9 year olds would know better. It's that we have University professors and Chicago Tribune writers, who don't know the first thing about the basic operations of a weapon, or impacts of a policy, and that qualifies them in their minds (and the publications) to comment as an expert, and forgo the fact checking.

Jennifer Barringer

(forensic expert) embarrassed herself on multiple times (Tru TV, Fox News, HLN, CBS and CNN) with absurd gun claims like "you can guns at grocery stores in Texas", "Ban scopes", "you can add adapters to make the rifle shoot faster", "your bullet doesn't have to be ejected between shots", and so on.

Joe Biden

Michael Bloomberg

Gun_Controllers

Michael Bloomberg (D) NYC Mayor, Billionaire, Gun-Moron - always has 5 armed bodyguards around him. He's always hated guns, and demonstrated basic ignorance about them. In one video he demonstrated he doesn't know the difference between fully and semi-automatic (what defines a real Assault Rifle banned since the 1930's, and the invented term Assault Weapon that he wants to ban, because it has plastic parts that make it looks like an Assault Rifle). He says you pull the trigger once and "pap...pap...pap...pap". Nope, those are illegal. He goes on to show he doesn't know rifles, pistols, or hunting. Hey Mikey, if you don't know what you're talking about, put down the megaphone. I'm sometimes amazed he can operate dining utensils without hurting himself.

CNN

CNN explains to us about guns for ants -- a .223mm is mighty small. (about 1/128th of an inch) -- it's either a .223 Caliber (how much of an inch across it is), or it's a 5.56mm. They also got wrong .9mm (9mm) and .22mm long rifle (22LR).

I think they only tried to add the "long rifle" to the slide because it sounded "scary". In truth, the 22LR is the weakest common rifle (or pistol) round you can use, though it sometimes comes in a 22-short variant for targets (that was popular decades ago), which is the only reason why they differentiate. But again, if CNN had fact checkers, they would have caught that.

To give you a sense of scale -- boxes of ammo may be 50-100 rounds (take someone else shooting, and you're probably going to go through 300 rounds), but many shooters buy cans (or bags) that come in 500 or 1,000 rounds bulk. So this maniac had enough ammo to go shooting 3 or 4 times with each gun. And dynamite fishing only once. Or as they'd say in Texas or Arkansas upon hearing of that stockpile, "Bubba's running a little low on ammo".

Katy Tur

Doesn't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic. Which is fine, if she knew she was ignorant and didn't pontificate on it so much.

Diana DeGette (D) Colorado Congresswoman

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) made this comment during an April 2 gun control forum in Denver confirming what gun owners already suspected: She doesn't know what she's talking about. Bullets go in magazines, they don't magically come from them. This wasn't just a gaffe, this is totally misunderstanding how everything works.

"If you ban (high cap magazines) in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available."

Patricia Eddington (D) NY Assemblywoman

Former Assemblywoman Patricia Eddington (D-NY), "Come on. This is crazy. … But some of these bullets have an incendiary device on the tip of it, … which is a heat seeking device. So you don’t shoot deer with a bullet that size. If you do, you could cook it at the same time"

Everytown USA

Everytown (aka Mom's demand action) is one of Michael R. Bloomberg's many false fronts for undermining the constitution. They have yet to publish anything honest. But what isn't dishonest is just stupid. Like they don't know which end of a bullet goes towards the bad guys, as demonstrated by this tweet.

Diane Feinstein (D) Senator California

Feinstein at a press conference. This photo is infamous in Gun-Advocate circles. Here's dimwit Diane, doing something that everyone who has any training on a gun, knows is bad, "Never put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot".

You see this in Hollywood movies, and by people that have never used guns in real life (or have poor training or a lack of respect for those around them) -- they put their finger on the triggers. So Diane is blathering about how dangerous guns are, while behaving without callous disregard for those around her, and failing to follow the first rule of gun safety ("Trigger Discipline"). And if you know her background (about getting a Conceal and carry permit, while being an opponent of them for everyone else), it just makes it worse.

Diane's famous photo likely inspired this meme. A guy is shot/grenaded, and he still knows to keep his finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot. Something no gun controller posing for the cameras seem to understand.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun control, basically claiming her proposed semi-automatic weapons ban would finally make it illegal to hunt people. I think I know what she was trying to say, but that was a polemics lie that was even worse. So she's not just an insulting liar, but she's to dumb to do that right.

"We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it's legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines."

Cruz asked, "would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?"

She went off tantrumed back:

that he was being condescending, and while she wasn't a lawyer she'd been on this committee for 20 years - that didn't answer the question, and she was still wrong on the point.

She said, "I've seen the bullets that implode" - physics don't allow them to do that

She said, "youngsters were dismembered" (at Sandyhook) - they were not, and a AR-15 is not capable of doing that

She says. "weapons of war," (fully automatics) - but those have been illegal since the 1930's

She used fallacies like "Bazookas" - no one was discussing those

She ranted on about what the Heller decision meant.

Her followers and the media all cheered her on saying she really told Cruz off...only what she and her followers forgot was Ted Cruz, is not only a Lawyer, and a Constitutional Lawyer (unlike her), but he was the one that drafted the Amicus Brief that was used to argue in the Heller decision, that his argument won.

There's two views to that exchange, the ignorant folks that thought her visceral emotional rant carried the day. And the logical and informed folks that saw Cruz's point go unanswered, and an outclassed dimwit argue with a constitutional lawyer and the author of the very ruling she was trying to tell him supported her view, while he was patiently trying to explain that it most definitely did not.

"If I could have banned them all -- 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' -- I would have!"

Feinstein explaining how when she dealt with threats on her life, how she was scared so she got a concealed permit and she carried all the time because she was going to shoot them before they shot her. But she wants to make sure we never have that same sense of security.

Whoopi Goldberg (D)

Don't get me started on these klatch of dim-wits on The View. But they're a good example of people in NY and Hollywood talking about shit they don't know the first thing about. Things like Whoopi saying "She Wants Automatic Weapons Banned"... only fully-automatic weapons have been banned since 1934. And if you don't know the difference between fully-automatic and semi-automatic guns, you shouldn't talk about either. Just avoid guns in general, since you'll just demonstrate a strong opinion based on complete ignorance of the topic.

Jesse Jackson (D)

The dumb is strong with this one. Box cutters brought down 4 airplanes, should we outlaw them? While it might be theoretically possible if it was landing, and you got an impossibly lucky shot, to date, no commercial airplane in the U.S. has ever been brought down by small arms fire. Ever. The only practical way that’s happening is if you got one on-board, and used it to shoot the pilot, and that is already a few kinds of illegal.

Gersh Kuntzman (D)

2016.07.14 ~ Gersh Kuntzman fired a weapon and had a literary meltdown about how scary it was, and exaggerates (to comical levels) everything to do with the gun and his experience. Here’s the serious piece (that reads like satire to the informed) that shows everything wrong with gun controllers and scare-mongers:

When Kuntzman was shown that he was stupidly lying, instead of being mature and apologizing for his ridiculously embellished story that would have embarrassed Bryan Williams, Kuntzman doubled-down and claimed he was justified , and anyone that disagreed was just a gun-nut, and that he was the victim (instead of the perpetrator of an absurd set of lies).

@Jennifer4130

This is an Internet (Twitter) celebrity "Jennifer Mom" who became popular in 2014 with #GunSense #NotOneMore hashtag campaigns. She's so dumb, it's hard to tell if she's a troll or not -- but her followers seem to take her seriously -- so even if she's not dumb, her followers appear to be buying it.

Her tweet about filing down the firing pin to make a gun fully automatic is classic Jennifer. All that would really do, is mean is that your gun can't fire at all. So either she's be trolled and is repeating something she heard or found (and is "uninformed"), or she's trolling people who are buying it (and are "easily led astray"). But the fact that so many people believe that she could be a sincere gun-control advocate sort of proves the point -- her lack of information both amuses and infuriates the gun-rights folks, while her followers dutifully retweet her drivel.

Carolyn McCarthy (D) - NY Congresswoman

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) has no clue what a “barrel shroud” is, although she wants to regulate it and the term is in her legislation. She was questioned about it, and the hest she can do is “it’s a shoulder thing that goes up.” It isn't (I think she's talking about a folding stock). A barrel shroud is a small plastic/wood/metal cover that surrounds the barrel to prevent burns when it heats-up under high rates of fire).

Terry McAuliffe (D) Governor of Virginia

The day after the Virginia Baseball shooting of Steve Scalise (et al), Terry McAuliffe got out there and made a plea about the "93 million Americans every day to gun violence". He repeated it. Then when challenged, he corrected it. Sorta. His numbers are out of date, and he's throwing in gun suicides (despite guns have no noticeable effect on suicides), defensive uses, legitimate police shootings, and so on.

MSNBC

There are so many to choose from. I've never heard one of their commentators get virtually anything right about gun operation or gun control. It's not that each of them makes a slip now and again, it's that none of them have ever gotten the basics right.

Chris Matthews

So much dumb in one place. From using Everytown for Gun Safety fraudulent numbers, to not knowing about NRA gun safety programs, to ignoring all the plans the other side has offered but been ignored on, to not knowing the basics of gun control laws we have. He's either ignorant, retarded, a liar, or some degree of all of the above.

Lawrence O'Donnel

the rate of fire on a handgun is less than 15 rounds per minute. They have the same rate of fire, or sometimes faster. (About 3-5 rounds per second, is easily achievable in a pistol).

1100 fps is not quick enough to kill someone with an AR-15, because rifle bullets are 3x faster. The facts are that teachers with handguns have already stopped shooters. And historically, civilians have better scores than cops on this. (Mass shootings stopped by civilians are quicker, fewer death tolls, less accidental casualties, and so on).

Imagine you’re a teacher, and some kid is shooting people. Do you want to have a tool (gun) to defend yourself and your students or to wait for the cops to arrive, and get out from behind the cars and come in... 8-20 minutes later. He seems to think you would rather die, than use a pistol to defend yourself, just because the cops hid outside and waited for the bloodshed to be over before entering.

Barack Obama (D) Ex-President

Obama says utterly retarded things like, "And then there’s a reality that there are neighborhoods around the country where it is easier for a 12 or 13-year-old to purchase a gun, and cheaper, than it is for them to get a book"

Has he ever heard of Amazon.com?
How do you download a gun off the Internet?

Of course if it was true, it would only show the failure of gun control, since those neighborhoods would most likely be ones in Chicago and Detroit, where they have strict gun control. He's arguing against gun control, and isn't bright enough to realize he's saying, "It's not working, we need more of it!".

I decomposed just one of his speeches at Obama fact-check on Guns, and frankly, got bored correcting all the lies, errors and a fraction of the omissions, just 1/4th of the way through it. If their best speaker, with the entire resources of the President, can't do better than this crap, then it's no wonder the informed ignore the gun-control advocates.

Nancy Pelosi (D) California Congresswoman

Nancy Pelosi, when asked about gun rights, Nancy Pelosi explained,

"We're talking about no further sales of assault weapons. What is the justification for an assault weapon? No further sales of those, no further sales of the increased capacity, 30 rounds in a gun. We're re talking about background checks which is very popular, even among gun owners, and, hunters.
We avow the First Amendment. We stand with that and say that people have a right to have a gun to protect themselves in their homes and their jobs, where, and that they -- and the workplace and that they, for recreation and hunting and the rest. So we're not questioning their right to do that."

Ignoring that she confuses the 1st and 2nd Amendment and seems confused as to what the term "avow" actually means, the statement just gets dumber and more offensive:

She says background checkers are popular among gun owners and hunters, they're not. And if they are, let's have them for voting or getting social services

She meant to say "Assault Rifles" (a made up term by progressives that means low powered rifles that look like Assault Weapons) -- but you can't outlaw assault rifles according to prior Supreme Court rulings, because those are the exact kind of arms that the 2nd was written to protect. She wouldn't be "avowing" the 2nd, she wants to violate it.

And her blather about increased capacity doesn't make sense -- magazines are cheap to make and buy. You can print plans for your 3D printer. So what does outlawing them do?

In the end, everyone that listens to Pelosi gets dumber by proxy. And this wasn't in the top-10 of dumbest things said on the topic.

Bonnie Schaefer (D) DNC Platform Committee member

A Democratic National Platform Committee member (Bonnie Schaefer) said that no one should own a gun, “I really don’t personally think anyone should have a gun, I mean that’s just my own — you know — philosophy. Nothing is ever solved when you have a gun in your hand, except the worst possible scenario”. Yup, the worst possible scenario is you weren't raped, murdered or assaulted while waiting for the cops to arrive.

Louise Slaughter (D) - NY Congresswoman

13-term congresswoman Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-New York) blamed the Second Amendment for violent crime, saying "Americans aren't safe anywhere" and gun control "has to be done" to protect citizens from themselves and their constitutionally guaranteed individual right to own a firearm.

Then she made one of the dumbest quotes since Maxine Waters learned to speak:

The Second Amendment only protects the people who want all the guns they can have. The rest of us, we've got no Second Amendment. What are we supposed to do?

Joe Salazar (D) Colorado State Representative

Rep. Joe Salazar with regards to why women on campus shouldn't use a gun to stop rape:

"It's why we have call boxes, it's why we have safe zones, it's why we have the whistles. Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at... And you don't know if you feel like you're gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone's been following you around or if you feel like you're in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop ... pop a round at somebody."

I'm OK with a woman shooting someone trying to rape her. In fact, I'm sort of a fan of it. It would likely cut down on rapes more than whistles and call boxes.

Shannon Watts (D) Activist "Moms Demand Action"

There were guns in the 1600's that exceeded that rate of fire, by a lot.

Leland Yee (D) California State Senator

Democrat State Senator from California, Leland Yee Talks about not having Assault Weapons in the Hands of the People, right before he gets arrested for illegal arms trafficking (selling both illegal guns and rocket launchers, from an Islamic Terrorist organization).

Washington Post

WaPo gets caught in many lies about Gun Control. Here's just an example: they spin a yarn about how 1/24th of kids witnessed seen a shooting, when any editor or fact checker would not have let that fraud through.